1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s qualification to participate in the bid against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2016.

1. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff 1) The non-existence of the grounds for the disposition does not constitute a subcontract for the above work to A, while the plaintiff employed A's aide as a daily worker while driving away from the due date. The plaintiff employed A's aide as a daily worker and let A carry out the packing work and the tricheoning work for part of the supplied quantity.

Even if a subcontract was made, this constitutes a subcontract for a part of the process. According to Article 18(2) and (3) of the Special Conditions on Contracts to Purchase the Goods (hereinafter “Special Conditions on Contracts”), a subcontracting for a finished product is prohibited in principle, and it is exceptionally possible to obtain direct approval from a contracting officer. However, in the case of a certain process subcontracting, it is not subject to such restriction. As such, the Plaintiff does not have an obligation to obtain a subcontract, and thus, does not constitute a “person who has given a subcontract without approval from a contracting officer” under Article 27(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”); Article 76(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27475, Sep. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act”).

B) On March 21, 2016, which was after December 15, 2015, when the Defendant was found to have discovered the Plaintiff’s violation, the instant disposition is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant ordered an additional order of KRW 1,000 for the Army Cargo Stoppy 1,00; and (b) the Defendant partly cancelled the instant goods supply contract for the same reason as the instant disposition was revoked; and (c) revoked the goods subject to a negotiated contract for the Army Cargo Stoppy. 2)